The Bombay High Court on Monday stayed the 30 September 2025 order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Andheri which had directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against Flipkart Internet Limited and others following a copyright complaint filed by Shemaroo Entertainment Pvt Ltd alleging unauthorised use of its content for promotional purposes.
A Bench comprising Shree Chandrashekhar (Chief Justice) and Gautam Ankhad (Justice) issued notice to the respondents and listed the matter for final hearing on 24 November 2025. They ordered that “no further proceedings shall continue pursuant to the magistrate’s directions” until that date.
“Till then, further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 30th September 2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate… shall remain stayed,” the Bench said.
Shemaroo’s complaint asserted that Flipkart employed its copyrighted material on social‑media platforms to promote the e‑commerce site without taking a licence, thereby engaging in unauthorised commercial exploitation.
The magistrate’s 30 September order had held that the complaint revealed cognisable and non‑bailable offences under Sections 63 and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957, read with Sections 318(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
It was noted that the investigating officer at the MIDC Police Station had declined to register an FIR on the basis that the alleged use fell under fair use provisions (Section 52(a)(2) of the Copyright Act). The magistrate rejected the fair‑use defence, observing:
“The duty of the police officer is to register the FIR in relation to commission of a cognizable offence. He cannot adjudicate the matter and refuse to register the FIR on the basis of his own conclusion.”
Describing the Senior Inspector’s conclusion that the matter was a civil dispute as “misplaced”, the magistrate reiterated that copyright infringement can amount to a cognisable, non‑bailable offence. He directed the original complaint and supporting documents to be forwarded to the MIDC Police under Section 175(3) of the BNSS for investigation and report.
Flipkart challenged the magistrate’s order by filing a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The company was represented by Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam along with Advocates Thomas George and Aamir Sopariwala. The State of Maharashtra was represented by Advocate M.M. Deshmukh, while Shemaroo was represented by Advocates Aniket Nikam, Mahesh Mahadgut, Pradip Jaiswal and Kaivalya Shetye.
